Contrary to popular belief, Nelson Mandela was not a "prophet of peace" nor was he imprisoned for 27 years for "fighting against apartheid." In fact, Mandela was a communist terrorist who bombed assorted facilities and buildings and killed people, along with other black and Jewish intellectuals of the day. The Rivonia trial was not about "apartheid" it was about murders committed at the hands of Nelson Mandela and others.
From an Amazon.com review:
This book carefully documents the evidence from the Rivonia Trial. Rivonia was a suburb of Johannesburg where the ten defendants secretly met and hid on a farm. Ethnically they were 3 Jews, 2 Indians and the rest black. Nelson Mandela had masqueraded as a cook and gardener.
The trial began in December 1963 and the verdicts were rendered in July 1964. The trial outlines the conspiracy to violently overthrow the South African government.
It proves how the revolutionaries planned and implemented campaigns of sabotage, intimidation, torture, guerrilla warfare, violence, disruption of transportation and communications, insurrection and revolution against the government with the assistance of the Communists and other radicals. They planned to manufacture or purchase explosives such as 48,000 land mines each containing 5 pounds of dynamite, 210,000 hand grenades each containing 1/4 pd of dynamite as well as petrol bombs,syringe bombs, thermite bombs, 1,500 timing devices for bombs, as well as molotov cocktails.
Their requirements included 144 tons of ammonium nitrate,21.6 tons of aluminum powder and 15 tons of black powder. They prepared for a nucleus army of 7,000 soldiers. Many to be trained abroad in Communist countries. The campaign was based on the model of successes previously achieved in Algeria and Cuba. More than ten documents written in Nelson Mandella's handwriting were submitted as evidence. They contained notes on basic and advanced military training and warfare as well as Communist doctrine. Although Mandella denied being a Communist he admitted that the aims and objectives of the ANC and Communist Party were identical. He even spoke of retaliation against non supportive blacks such as murder and cutting off their noses.
The planners were convicted and sentenced to life in prison.
The lesson that may be learned from this is that governments when threatened such as in this case must move harshly. Had these terrorists been convicted of treason and executed things might have turned out differently.
April 10, 2017 Subject:
Aha, so when the government is not doing as I desire I can organize mass killings of people, because I'm so oppressed, while I actually have the option of self-government (as in South Africa).
The book reveals a lot about the history of the ANC and Nelson Mandela that is today simply brushed off like the genocidal terrorism and communist motivations for the "armed struggle" which was aiming to dump South Africa into a bloody civil war.
May 19, 2016 Subject:
You guys are bonkers...he started off using non-violent tactics and resorted to violence because previous tactics weren't working to his desired effect. And what would you do in his position when the government (the people who control your life) is oppressing you and you were fed up with it?
February 6, 2015 Subject:
Was Nelson Mandela a terrorist?
Let the reader decide after reading this hard hitting book.
The SA government was too lenient! This communist bastard/terrorist should've been hanged!
"Although Mandella denied being a Communist he admitted that the aims and objectives of the ANC and Communist Party were identical."
If it walks like a duck...
"He even spoke of retaliation against non supportive blacks such as murder and cutting off their noses."
Typical communist terror tactics. Lying nigger.
November 23, 2010 Subject:
Superbly Insightful with Delicious Details
One of those rare books which is suppressed and speaks volumes of truth.
November 10, 2010 Subject:
The information presented is not as interesting as the assumptions that taken from that information. Mandela and the ANC planned and acted violently. People died. As far as I can tell Mandela and the other Rivonia trialists never argued otherwise.
The argument that these actions were not about anti-apartheid but rather about terrorism and murder is myopic. If murder and terrorism was the point then the state should have been on trial as well. A more important question is whether the actions would have ever been taken if the state itself had not used violence against non violent protesters. If everyone were allowed to vote would it have happened? If non whites had not been moved to the poorest areas of the country would it have happened? If people had not been banned and imprisoned for speaking opinions the state did not appreciate, would these actions have happened.
When even peaceful protests are met with violence the only way to communicate seems to be with violence. Even Gandhi left South Africa. His ideas of non-violence are effective against a British empire that is unwilling to kill those who are not acting violently. It is not so effective against those willing to kill even the peaceful.
Communism muddles the issue it seems. Communism has roots in observations of the effects of concentrated power. The ANC and the communist party (there was often dual membership) shared the observation that concentrated power was problematic. Even the South African Communist party eventually proved to be less that stalwart communists. In effect these groups in South Africa were protest organizations. They had a very good understanding of what was wrong but not necessarily what should come - ironically it they could not say what things should be like to any great degree or it would be an action of concentrated power, things would have to be decided in relationship with one another. The important point is that these groups were focused on protest and ending apartheid. It is a mistake to give too much credence to the little focus put on what the future should look like other than they felt democratic elections were necessary.
There is a lot of accurate information in this book. There is a lot of misuse of that information as well. Where this book is valuable is in understanding the psychology of apartheid, which is not the intention of the book.